Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
blender-mcp

blender-mcp

by kleer001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apply_modifier

Destructive

Apply a modifier to an object, permanently baking its effects into the mesh geometry.

Instructions

Apply a modifier, baking it into the mesh. Requires Object Mode. Irreversible.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "object": "<object>",
      "modifier": "<modifier>"
    },
    "name": "apply_modifier"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectYes
modifierYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Irreversible' and uses the phrase 'baking it into the mesh' to convey that the operation permanently alters the mesh. This adds valuable context not present in the annotation alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with the action stated first, followed by a brief prerequisite and consequence. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the existing output schema, and the annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it can be used, and that it is irreversible. No critical information is missing for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has two string parameters (object, modifier) with no description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what these parameters should contain (e.g., names, paths, or indices), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. This does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('a modifier'), and explains the effect ('baking it into the mesh'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_modifier or set_modifier_property.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires Object Mode'), which informs when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools